Beginning in April 2023, Sudan’s civil war has destabilized the Horn of Africa and led to disastrous consequences far beyond its borders. The conflict has displaced nearly 10 million people and left over 25 million facing acute hunger. The failed peace initiatives, rather than quelling the violence, have only deepened the crisis, trapping civilians in a nightmare of escalating brutality.
The free-burning conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has turned “homes into cemeteries,” as a UN report chillingly describes. Similarly, U.S. Special Envoy Tom Perriello has also drawn an equally horrifying comparison, warning that Sudan could become a “Somalia on steroids,” a failed state mired in perpetual conflict.
The humanitarian response by the international community has been tragically insufficient, with only 17 percent of the needed aid reaching those in desperate need. The mass exodus of Sudanese fleeing to neighboring countries like Chad, Uganda, Ethiopia and South Sudan may ignite further regional instability, perpetuating a vicious cycle of violence across borders. The international community’s inaction is threatening to push this disaster to spiral further out of control, with consequences that could reshape the region for decades.
The human toll in Sudan’s ongoing crisis is both staggering and heartbreaking. With an estimated 150,000 lives already lost. The British Red Cross reports that 25 million people urgently need humanitarian aid as of April 2024. Among them, 18 million are acutely hungry, and 3.6 million children are acutely malnourished — a harrowing reality that underscores the depth of this tragedy. But numbers alone can’t capture the full scale of suffering. These statistics represent real people — families torn apart, children facing a bleak future and communities grappling with profound loss.
Beyond the immediate crisis lies a long-term shadow, where severe physical and psychological injuries will haunt survivors for years, if not decades. Sudan’s history is a narrative punctuated by tragedy and turmoil. Since gaining independence from British and Egyptian rule in 1956, the nation has been marred by cycles of conflict, famine and ethnic cleansing. The 22-year civil war from 1983 to 2005 stands as a stark testament to the enduring and profound struggles that have defined Sudan’s troubled history.
The flicker of hope that ignited in 2019, with the ousting of long-time dictator Omar al-Bashir, was quickly extinguished in 2021 when Sudan’s fragile democracy was shattered by a coup orchestrated by army General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who is known as Hemedti. The seeds of the current conflict were sown in the discord between these two military leaders. Once allies, Burhan, commander of the Sudanese Armed Forces, and Hemedti, leader of the Rapid Support Forces, found their relationship strained over the reintegration of the latter into the regular army.
While Hemedti envisioned a gradual process spanning a decade, Burhan believed it could be accomplished in just two years. This rift has since spiraled into a devastating crisis, unleashing a brutal genocide that has received scant attention compared to other global tragedies, such as the conflict in Gaza. The world’s indifference has only deepened the wounds of a nation already on its knees. Civilians are enduring unimaginable suffering, trapped in a brutal conflict that shows no signs of abating. The violence is relentless, with aid efforts repeatedly blocked by combatants who use strategic embargoes to deepen the crisis.
The U.S. State Department has confirmed the grim reality: Both sides are guilty of war crimes, with the Rapid Support Forces and allied militias implicated in acts of ethnic cleansing. The international community’s response has been woefully inadequate, distracted by other global crises and rising geopolitical tensions.
Despite U.S. efforts to revive peace talks, the quest for a lasting ceasefire remains frustratingly out of reach. Criticism has mounted against the Biden administration’s Africa policy, particularly for misjudging the civil war as a mere localized dispute, overlooking its potential to ignite a broader regional conflict. This oversight, some experts argue, has only exacerbated the crisis.
Sudan’s strategic location has attracted numerous actors into the peace process, from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to neighboring states and global powers. The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, the Arab League, the African Union, and the UN are just some of the entities involved.
However, these fragmented efforts have inadvertently allowed the warring factions to exploit the situation, using diplomatic delays to escalate violence and deepen civilian suffering. Today, Sudan harbors the largest internally displaced population globally, a grim reflection of both the ongoing conflict and the legacy of previous wars.
The main obstacle isn’t just the war itself but the lack of clear differentiation between genuine peace efforts and strategic maneuvers by rival powers seeking geopolitical gain. What should be a unified and inclusive peace process has devolved into a chaotic tangle of initiatives, each more redundant — and at times counterproductive — than the last.
This disarray has given the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese Armed Forces ample opportunity to selectively engage with peace efforts based on whether these initiatives threaten to hold them accountable for their war crimes, including blocking humanitarian aid. Despite international warnings and sanctions, both sides remain more focused on military gains than on achieving peace. There is little appetite for a grand bargain or even a temporary ceasefire that could halt the bloodshed and allow for more effective diplomacy.
The window for influential global actors to enforce a credible peace is rapidly closing, and the cost of inaction will be measured in further human suffering and regional instability. The time for decisive intervention is slipping away.
Imran Khalid is a geostrategic analyst and freelance writer. He is a physician and has a master’s degree in international relations.